Print

[Mattssogay]

QUOTE(rippinitto @ Aug 6 2007, 03:04 AM)

33% failure rate of all 360s
Do some thing right the first time MS. You may have deserved this shit

Just because some website did an EXTREMELY informal poll article does not mean that that is the failure rate.

FTA:
"Article"

QUOTE

“The real numbers were between 30 to 33 percent,” said former EB Games employee Matthieu G., adding that failure rate was even greater for launch consoles. “We had 35 Xbox 360s at launch I know more than half of them broke within the first six months (red lights or making circles under the game discs). Two of them were dead on arrival.”

QUOTE

Former EB Games worker Matthieu G. said that the failure rates for all other consoles were not high enough for the retailer to consider revising its policies, and guesses that most other console systems have a failure rate of less than one percent, including the PlayStation 3.

QUOTE

The failure rate nearing a third of all Xbox 360 consoles was found at other retailers too. A Best Buy customer service department manager, who wished to remain unnamed, said that failure rates for the console were “between a quarter to a third” of all units sold.

That is the experience of 2 people it's hard to even say its a poll. The first thing to look at in any of these statistics articles is the pooling of data. They don't have a pool its a dried up, stinky mud puddle.

The second quote by Matt G. is the most telling. This points to the source as unreliable at best because he is making guesses. So in the end it looks like the pool of data is one person, the unnamed customer service department manager.

Stop quoting 33% like its gospel, it's not. MS has said that its higher than normal which could mean anything.
The 360 has a failure rate that is for sure, but I have no idea what it is neither did the guy who wrote this article based on what two people in retail "said".

This post has been edited by Mattssogay: Aug 6 2007, 10:21 PM

[Chancer]

QUOTE

n the real world, it's possible that each of these people make a copy of the game for themselves before trading it in. All of the above still happens, with the exception that they still have a copy of the game and could possibly purchase MORE on-line content for it, with the addition of playing online with it resulting in continual Xbox Live Subscriptions.

 Lame excuses. If there was no piracy the same people would have to buy the game just like the rest of us do and they would still purchase extra content and continue Xbox live subscriptions(Look how many people were even willing to buy another box just to play on live again after being banned). If revenue from extra content and XBL subs was the mainstay MS would subsidise games and make them free just so they could rake in the money else where. In the real world pirates cost companies money. That money is raised through other means. The company don't pay that themselves they pass it on to the end user. That means I pay for pirates.
If I can't afford a game I want... guess what I save up, work some extra hours to pay for it.

QUOTE

I will give you that, anyone who has said anthing about d/ling, borrowing, and what not have had swift justice done, but if you honestly believe that EVERY person that has asked a question on "how do i do this" and has gotten answers, that is turning a blind eye. It is too easy to ask a question about how to back up a game and get it to run and phrase the question so that I hide either the "borrowed" or "downloaded" portion of my question.

It doesn't matter what I believe. I might believe that a bloke round the corner from me is a Nonce, but unless I can prove it I can not do anything about it. That is not turning a blind eye.

This post has been edited by Chancer: Aug 6 2007, 10:35 PM

[Martinchris23]

QUOTE(Chancer @ Aug 6 2007, 10:28 PM)

Lame excuses. If there was no piracy the same people would have to buy the game just like the rest of us do and they would still purchase extra content and continue Xbox live subscriptions(Look how many people were even willing to buy another box just to play on live again after being banned). If revenue from extra content and XBL subs was the mainstay MS would subsidise games and make them free just so they could rake in the money else where. In the real world pirates cost companies money. That money is raised through other means. The company don't pay that themselves they pass it on to the end user. That means I pay for pirates.
If I can't afford a game I want... guess what I save up, work some extra hours to pay for it.

You entirely missed the point here. I was explaining that buying pre-owned software is more or less financially the same as people not buying the software at all. The developers don't get the money in either instance.

Case A was precisely from a 'no piracy' angle. The same pre-owned titles are traded without a penny going towards the developers. Like I stated, only the game stores profit from the sale of pre-owned games.

In the real world, companies overcharge in anticipation of piracy, whether it affects them or not. Xbox 360 games were always £50 retail, long before people could copy them. Has the price increased since it's been possible to copy them?

If you truly think that games cost what they do due to piracy, you're looking through rose-coloured glasses. The price of games is set by the consumer - while people are prepared to pay £50 for a game, they'll continue to sell at this price. If you think that if everyone who download games actually bought them at full retail price instead would lower the cost of games, you're certifiable. Halo stayed at £40 for the Xbox until about 2 months before Halo 2. Why? It was selling well at this price. Would you honestly reduce the cost of a product you are selling if it was doing well? Why believe that 360 games are any different?

If Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo wanted to stamp out piracy, they could do. They just don't want to.

[swampy]

QUOTE(Chancer @ Aug 6 2007, 09:28 PM)

 In the real world pirates cost companies money.

Keep believing  that lie, most of the people who pirate games don't have the money to buy them in the first place.   It's good a few people like the CEO of Barnes and Noble are starting to realize that they don't loose a single sale because of copies of books being available for free at libraries or online.   99% people that copy games, copy movies, copy books would never buy them, so the companies loose next to nothing.

[Chancer]

QUOTE

If Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo wanted to stamp out piracy, they could do. They just don't want to.

And you call me certifiable.
 I pay for pirates and I don't mean the cost of games I mean the measures taken to counteract, the enforcement of laws against pirates all indirect costs are met by law abiding taxpayers.
MS bans people playing **backups**  on live, it costs them lost revenue. You will be telling me next they actually make more money because everyone signs back up again with another box. Some will. most will not. Let me think some don't renew XBL is that a company loss or a gain?
I can't see anywhere where I said game prices would come down. Instead I do see a huge contradiction from you

QUOTE

In the real world, companies overcharge in anticipation of piracy,

QUOTE

If you truly think that games cost what they do due to piracy, you're looking through rose-coloured glasses.

 You can't argue both points at once. either companies have built in an extra amount for piracy coverage or they haven't. Which one is it?

Despite your "I don't condone Piracy"  I would bet my wages on the fact that the people who claim it doesn't cost companies any money pirate stuff themselves. The people who usually state that also go right ahead and justify it in their post. If you were not condoning piracy you don't need to state it, it would be obvious.
 As for the  idea that people who pirate , could not afford the games... Well they can afford the console and XBL. If they can't afford the games then they shouldn't have any access to get them. They would soon find the money
You can claim what you want but you know full well what piracy does.
 Edit
there is an interesting document here http://www.mpaa.org/2006_05_03leksumm.pdf

This post has been edited by Chancer: Aug 7 2007, 04:38 PM

[CKwik240]

Pirating is not dissimilar to shoplifting or insurance fraud.  In the end, it costs consumers money.  While there is some difference in that pirating does not cause a direct loss to any party (shoplifting causes a loss to the retailers; insurance fraud causes a loss to the insurance company), the end result is that a person gets something they are not entitled to.  There is some level of profit that would have been lost however, should any of those who bought the pirated goods have bought the product otherwise.

As for the legal agreements, it's a way for law enforcement to be able to enforce the law.  It, in that of itself does not create a law.  Only, the user agrees to abide by the terms stated in the agreement.  It's something to throw into the evidence bin for a trial should it get that far.  I'll try and relate this in terms of insurance policies.  If you open up an insurance policy, it will have some sort of a fraud section.  Essentially, if you present or commit fraud, they can deny your claim.  Since the policy (which is a contract) indicates that fraud is not allowed this helps to solidify the fact that the company does not allow fraud.  It's not the primary purpose of this portion of a policy, but it does have the neat side effect that it helps prevent a defense of uncertainty.  This is likely the reasson such an agreement is make with games/software.  It increases the clarity so that a defense from the lack of clarity is minimized.  

As for an issue with a forum allowing certsain types of information, when it boils down to it, the people in charge of the forum reserves the right to allow/disallow posts, threads and people as they see fit.  If you'ld like to see a forum that is more open, then feel free to start one of your own.  But be aware, it's much more difficult than you probably realize.  Especially as the forum grows...